How we score peptides.

Evidence Quality — the strength, breadth and replication of the published research.

Transparency — supplier and clinical-trial transparency: lab partners, batch testing, COAs, conflicts of interest.

Safety Clarity — what's known about adverse-event profile, off-label risk and supply-chain safety.

Effectiveness — observed effect sizes in human or relevant model data, weighted by quality.

Value for Research — how useful the available evidence is for someone reasoning about the compound.

Research Analysis — we map peer-reviewed literature, preclinical findings, clinical trial data and regulatory filings.

Data Evaluation — evidence is weighted against the five criteria using a transparent rubric.

Expert Review — editorial reviewers stress-test claims, flag conflicts of interest and document anything that should change the verdict.

Final Verification — a signed-off review goes live with a verification badge, last-updated date and a clear regulatory and safety statement.

Reviews change when the underlying evidence does — new trial readouts, regulatory updates, or material changes in supplier or industry practice.

We display the last-updated date on every review. Reviews older than 12 months are flagged for re-evaluation.

Scoring is a tool, not a verdict. A high score is not an endorsement of use, and a low score is not a claim that a compound has no scientific interest.

Where evidence is sparse or contested, the score reflects that uncertainty.